Im still in debate with a Hindu (follower of non-dualism school) and he keeps asserting that there is Atman/Brahman

Ive given the ususal of anatta but as they have "neti-neti" he just agrees with me and still states there is Atman/Brahman. Ive argued that all dhammas and nibbana are without self but he just then says that the word self is just a word and that Atman/Brahman is behind that still just as its behind "I" and consciousness which he agrees are anatta

His argument is that Nibbana is this Atman/Brahman reality since its permanent and outside of the khandas, thus the Buddha was able to function and teach (since he had realized Atman/Brahman)

Here are some of his points

Atman/Brahman is not a thingie. Atman is not atta, which refers to individual souls, which is called ego (ahamkara) in Vedanta parlance. Ahamkara is VOID and ignorance.

I repeat that Atman is not atta.

Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. VIII, 3. and Ud 1.3 PTS: Ud 2 Bodhi Sutta: Awakening (3)

When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.-----Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:As phenomena grow clear to the brahman — ardent, absorbed — he stands, routing the troops of Mara, like the sun that illumines the sky

The above two passages clearly show that there is Verily, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. You may call this by any name, it does not matter

This is plain copy of Upanishads and this much alone is my point. Atman in Veda/Vedanta parlance is Aja (unborn), unoriginated, unformed, indivisible, has no inner or outer cognition, cannot be said to have no cognition, is free of action, is unchangeable.As a follower of Veda, I agree fully:

Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible.

There is no need for further discussion.

Buddha was not a Brahmana, and neither he believed in self. It does not refer to a person of Brahman caste. It refers to an enlightened, who cannot be different from Brahman -- the unlimited Pragnya.

The writer paints the whole of Vedanta with one brush. The definition of 'Atman'-'atta' as the unchangeable eternal individual soul, is only held by dualists and not by non-dualists and also to some extent by qualified monists.

The whole contrast is pointless. It dis-regards that Vedanta has shruti that Atman is "NOT TWO". It is similar to the arguments between advaitins and dvaitins, who dis regard the clear cut abheda shruti by contrasting them with non-abheda mantras and other empirical teachings of Veda/Upanishad.

It does not take great intelligence to aver that one who holds to the unchangeable eternal individual soul, does not even aspire for a moksha proper. Such a devotee's mukti is bhakti/worship in eternal dual mode.

Upanishad says "Atman is fearless". On the other hand, it also says "One who sees a second is not free of fear" and "One who sees any difference here goes from death to death", we believe that "Atman" is indivisible "Not Two". We also believe that dualistic belief (even if vedantic) does not result in freedom from fear and death.

So, where is the validity of the contrast?

I can show that Atman is indeed "Not Two" as per Upanishads. It also is 'not a being and neither a non being'. So, starting with a premise of 'attas' which refers to 'many beings' in the Pali context, the whole issue is confused.

The simple thing to remember is:Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. VIII, 3.There is a great clarity here that there is 'AN Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed'. So, it is a clear cut advaita. There are not 'many Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed'.

An enlightened having escaped from the world of born, the originated, the created, the formed cannot yet make a second Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed' . Monism is the only truth for the enlightened and thus Guru Tattva is also non-dual.

He also keeps quoting this

Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. VIII, 3.There is a great clarity here that there is 'AN Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed'. So, it is a clear cut advaita. There are not 'many Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed'.

I have a hard time to get around this one since the pali text describing nibbana is exactly the same as the upanishadic description of Brahman/Atman

Any ideas? Ive made some points with him but these few above prove difficult (also i thought it would be interesting topic of discussion )

metta

He who binds to himself a joyDoes the wingèd life destroy;But he who kisses the joy as it fliesLives in eternity's sunrise.

what is the difference between no self - not self - and no self view two are possitions of a self, the third isn't. the Buddha took no position on a self because he had no self view to take a position on.

just my take on it.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

clw_uk: why do you need to defend Buddha?what do you think the Buddha would say to your question?why do you feel the need to argue with someone who holds views different than yourself? what will be achieved by this?

personally i find discussions where i try to convince someone else of my own views quite futile and mostly a waste of precious time.

"The Buddha talked about sankhata dhammas [conditioned phenomena] and asankhata dhammas [unconditioned phenomena] [...] Asankhata dhamma, the unconditioned, refers to the mind which has seen the Dhamma, the truth, of the five khandhas as they are -- as transient, imperfect and ownerless [...] Seeing in this way the mind transcends things. The body may grow old, get sick and die, but the mind transcends this state. When the mind transcends conditions, it knows the unconditioned. The mind becomes the unconditioned, the state which no longer contains conditioning factors [of greed, hatred, and delusion]. The mind is no longer conditioned by the concerns of the world, conditions no longer contaminate the mind. Pleasure and pain no longer affect it. Nothing can affect the mind or change it, the mind is assured, it has escaped all constructions. Seeing the true nature of conditions and the determined, the mind becomes free." -- "Living Dhamma: Toward the Unconditioned" by Ajahn Chahhttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... tml#toward

Could please explain the grammar breakdown and why "freedom from" is the most appropriate translation?

I believe I did in one or both of the threads I listed above, but I will pull bits and pieces from those threads and cobble them together here.

What the most common way this line is translated fails to get across is that the four “un/not” words are in Pali adjectives. The noun is unstated. There is what? There is what that is ajaata.m, etc? The common translation turns these adjectives into nouns -- "the unborn," "the unconditioned."

As mysterious as Udana 80 sounds, context gives a look at what the text is about. The immediate context, the sutta opens:

Thus have I heard. At one time the Lord was staying near Savatthi in the Jeta Wood at Anathapindika's monastery. On that occasion the Lord was instructing, rousing, inspiring, and gladdening the bhikkhus with a Dhamma talk connected with Nibbana, and those bhikkhus, being receptive and attentive and concentrating the whole mind, were intent on listening to Dhamma. Then, on realizing its significance, the Lord uttered on that occasion this inspired utterance: There is, bhikkhus, ajaata....

What we see right off the top is that the subject is nibbana. There is what? Nibbana. The four adjective modify, describe nibbana. So in the forms we have them above or in variations these four words are used to describe or characterize nibbana or are synonyms of nibbana.

The most straightforward definition the Buddha gives of Nibbana is:

That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is nibbana. -- S.N. IV 251 and IV 321

And we see:

That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is asankhata. -- S.N. IV 359 and S.N. 362

Clearly nibbana and asankhata are equivalent terms, synonyms. Nibbana is asankhata, “unconditioned,” because there is no further conditioning - sankhata - by hatred, greed and ignorance. The prefix "a" in asankhata is just like the English (Latin/Greek) prefix a as in, for example, asexual, without sexual characteristics, free of sexual characteristics. (And before a vowel, just as in English the Pali/Sanskrit privative a becomes an as in anatta/anatama.)

The privative a in Sanskrit/Pali needs not be, as unfortunately it so often is, limited to being translated as "un," "not," or "non." Asankhata, unconditioned, can be translated as free from conditions (of hatred, greed, and ignorance), without conditions, or, conditionlessness.

One of things that is often said is that nibbana is "the Unborn." Let us look at that usage where ajaata and nibbana are clearly synonytms:

Then the group of five monks, being thus exhorted, thus instructed by me [the Buddha], being liable to birth because of self, having known the perils in what is liable to birth, seeking the unborn [jaata.m], the uttermost security from the bonds -- nibbana -- won the unborn, the uttermost security from the bonds -- nibbana...." -- from the PTS translation of the Majjhima Nikaya I 173

What is the "unborn?" What does it mean? Try this:

”Then the group of five monks, being thus exhorted, thus instructed by me [the Buddha], being liable to birth because of self, having known the perils in what is liable to birth, seeking freedom from birth, the uttermost security from the bonds -- nibbana -- won freedom from birth, the uttermost security from the bonds -- nibbana...."

There is no philological reason that the four words in question must be translated as we generally see them translated: unborn, unconditioned, etc.

As was said above the line in Udana is a sentence without a noun but with a string of adjectives, which are essentially synonyms, or at least words with significant over lapping meanings that clearly define nibbana.

We might translate the "un" line so:

"There is [nibbana], free from birth, free from becoming, free from making, free from conditioning."

Translating ajaata.m etc, by "freedom from birth," etc. supplies the implied noun via the privative a as in asankhata.

We do not see in the Buddha's own commentary any reference to a Nibbana that has "never been born… has always been”, but we do see that "being freed of this" is a state of ease -- the "the conditions appeased (sankharupasamo)," a variation of asankhata, nibbana -- is reached. If the Buddha had wanted to teach a deathless, unborn “it,” we would have seen a very different sort of expression of the Dhamma.

That which is born, become, arisen, made, conditioned, And thus unstable, put together of decay and death, The seat of disease, brittle, Caused and craving food, That is not fit to find pleasure in.

Being freed of this, calmed beyond conjecture, stable, Freed from birth, freed from arising, freed from sorrow, Freed from passions, the elements of suffering stopped, The conditioning[of greed, hatred and delusion]appeased, This is ease [bliss].

So, I hope that explains it to some degree. There are more textrual references and detailed diwscussion to support my contention in this thread:

Now you are seen, Builder of the House. You will not build this house again. All your rafters are broken, your ridge-pole destroyed; the mind goes free from the compound; it experiences craving’s destruction.

or the mind goes free from constructing; it experiences craving’s destruction; or the mind goes free from putting together. Dhp 154

tilt

You seem possessed by this mechanical idea that transcendent means cut-off-from when it doesn't. The Buddha, himself, showed comapassion but was transcendent (he had gone beyond). It is like the simile of the lotus and the mud.

Okay. Let's see.

Dhp: By the self evil is committed; by the self one is defiled, to follow your atman-wallah mode of translation. So the self does evil, and that could only be true, if the self were conditioned and conditioning and in direct relationship with the khndhas.

You have already told us that your "self" is transcendent of the khandhas, of what we can know, experience, or how we act, and that your self is not acted upon nor can it act upon, but I can ask those questions again, and maybe get a clearer answer.

So, tell us the nature of this truly true self.

1) Can it act upon the senses?

2) Can the senses act upon it?

3) Does it change?

4) Is it conditioned?

5) Does it condition?

6) Does it feel?

7) If it doesn't feel, what relationship does it have with feeling?

8) Does it know?

9) Is it conscious?

10) If it is conscious, of what is it conscious?

11) If it knows, what does it know?

12) If it does not change, how can it be aware or know or act?

13) If it cannot be aware, know and act, what is the point of it?

14) Where is it?

15) Why did not the Buddha directly teach it, if it exists?

With the Lotus and mud, there is an interdependent relationship.

If the atman is something other than the khandhas and is unchanging, how does it relate to what changes without changing? If it changes, if it sees, etc, then it really is no different from the khandhas. Monks, whatever contemplatives or priests who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them. SN III 46

Dhs 165: by self evil is done; by self one is defiled.

If the self is invariable, it cannot do evil or defile anything, nor can it do good, nor can it be a measure of anything, for that requires relationship and change as being the nature of the supposed self, but by the definition you have given us, self cannot have this nature. If it is invariable, in no relationship with that which is variable, it cannot be known (apprehended) nor can it know, both of which require relationship and change, which is certainly not invariability. At best, so far, your answer to this is that it -- the self -- is a mystery. Same answer theists given when their notion of god is questioned. There is no wonder the Buddha said:

‘Bhikkhus, self and self’s property being unapprehendable as true and established, then would not this view “This is self, this the world: after death I shall be permanent, … endure as long as eternity” be the pure perfection of a fool’s idea?’ ‘How not, lord? It would be pure perfection of a fool’s idea.’ MN 22 I 138

So what is invariable within you that is not subject to delusion; which is stayed and perdurable?

The Buddha’s teachings do not require “stayed-ness” or “perdurable-ness,” which is the point of conditioned co-production.

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

why do you feel the need to argue with someone who holds views different than yourself? what will be achieved by this?

The discussion started because the guy was saying that

*Buddha taught Vedanta (in this case Advaita)*There is Atman/Brahman in Buddhadhamma*Nibbana is the "agent" or Self*Buddha just reformed Hinduism

There was a guy there who was interested in buddhism, hence i posted replies back because, at least from what ive learnt and been taught, these are wrong understandings of buddhadhamma and could hold someone back

I also think its important to not let false views that go against Buddhisms very principle circulate hence Dhamma declines

metta

He who binds to himself a joyDoes the wingèd life destroy;But he who kisses the joy as it fliesLives in eternity's sunrise.

I think in the end i wont win (although thats not the point of it) since, as i said in another thread, there seems a tendency to just keep putting Atman back behind anything you say is not-self. Cant really see how you can dislodge that view if its always being moved back

I find it odd really since they seem to negate everything as not-self and every attribute of Self, you have to wonder why on earth they even bother to call it self in the first place

metta

He who binds to himself a joyDoes the wingèd life destroy;But he who kisses the joy as it fliesLives in eternity's sunrise.

I think in the end i wont win (although thats not the point of it) since, as i said in another thread, there seems a tendency to just keep putting Atman back behind anything you say is not-self. Cant really see how you can dislodge that view if its always being moved back

Very easy. Ask what is the function of the atman. Does it see, does it feel? If it does not, then what is it point, what does it do? If it does something how can it be unchanging? If it changes, if it feels, it then is no different from the khandhas. In otherwords, keeping pulling the atman forward.

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

I think in the end i wont win (although thats not the point of it) since, as i said in another thread, there seems a tendency to just keep putting Atman back behind anything you say is not-self. Cant really see how you can dislodge that view if its always being moved back

Very easy. Ask what is the function of the atman. Does it see, does it feel? If it does not, then what is it point, what does it do? If it does something how can it be unchanging? If it changes, if it feels, it then is no different from the khandhas. In otherwords, keeping pulling the atman forward.

Never thought of this, thank you sir (input request for a smilie that tops his hat)

Have a feeling hes gonna go with "it just is" or something like that

metta

He who binds to himself a joyDoes the wingèd life destroy;But he who kisses the joy as it fliesLives in eternity's sunrise.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

As I tried to gently point out above I honestly don't think that such arguments help anyone.

I suspect one of the reasons that you are arguing with them is your attachment to Buddhist version being correct and the other versions being wrong. That, to put it very simplistically (because this is my level of understanding), "being one with the universe" is, according to the Buddha, a stage that one can pass through (and potentially get stuck in).

12. "Though certain recluses and brahmans claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of clinging... They do not understand one instance... therefore they describe only the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and clinging to rules and observances without describing the full understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self.

is NOT that these other recluses (or Internet posters...) are completely misguided and their methods are rubbish, but that there is a very subtle difference between the Buddha Dhamma and the rest.

My reading is also that understanding that difference is very difficult and very subtle, and I certainly don't claim to understand it. Arguing with people clinging to different views than the ones that we (or at least I) am clinging to is unlikely to help either side...

I think thats a good way actually, he did say at one point that it is the "knower"

If he states that "it just is" then it isnt a knower, it doesnt feel, see, act, move, like, dislike, cognize so therefore its nothing isnt it

What does it know? How does it know? How can it without changing? Etc. Knowing is a function of the khandhas.

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Im still in debate with a Hindu (follower of non-dualism school) and he keeps asserting that there is Atman/Brahman

Denying Atman is in some sense, affirming it. When the question was put to him bluntly, the Buddha refused to take an absolute position on the existence or non-existence of self because either view would be misleading.

If you outright reject the existence of sentient beings, who is currently speaking and who are you speaking to? And what is it that bears karma and is reborn? It is sentient beings: sentient beings bear karma and are reborn, but sentient beings are notself. I wouldn't bother with the Hindu. He might be deluded, maybe not.

Kind of in line with Individual's point, in the days when i used to spend more time at the grey forum i often wondered what fellow Buddhists from a number of traditions were refering to when they talked about being reborn in the Pureland, attaining a rainbow body, etc.

Who obtains a rainbow body, who is reborn?

But i never pressed about it, cause these are longstanding beliefs, which people hold dearly to. The contradiction (in my mind) with the Buddha's teachings of anatta was something i did not press.

With Hindus, many have a belief in atman. Why push it? It's someone's belief. Yeah, they are going to try and see the Buddha's dharma through that pov, but isnt that understandable? Muslims do that with Christianity and Judaism, they read the same books but spin it their way.

Imagine getting in the middle of that debate..!?

In my view everything is emptiness/no-thing-ness at its core, so folks can call things as they like. Even something like a soul, rainbow body, atman- even a pureland -- might exist for a period of time, i think, but not eternally. In the end all things, even sentient beings, dissolve into (fill in the blank)... Void, Unborn, Nothingness, Brahman, Spirit, Space, etc...

That's what i believe anyway, I could be wrong, just it seems impossible to PROVE these things, with logic, reasoning or science. That's why they are often called "spiritual beliefs."

"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

One does not have to deny it. All that is necessary is to show that when the notion is pushed, it ends up looking just like one or other of the khandhas. As Douglas Adams said: If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands, or atman ends up making no sense.

When the question was put to him bluntly, the Buddha refused to take an absolute position on the existence or non-existence of self because either view would be misleading.

Please quote the text for this claim.

.

++++++++++++++++This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

There is freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning. If there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning, then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making, conditioning, would not be known here. -- Ud 80

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.